ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent issued in proceedings OM No. 651/A2/2015 dated 08.07.2015 and quash the same and issue consequential direction to the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher as approved from 15.12.2010 as per the proceedings issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Chennai District in Na. Ka. No. 1821/A2/2011 dated 18.08.2011 and to grant all service and monetary benefits including the arrears of increments.

1. The petitioner herein was originally appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 15.12.2010 in Sri Janakiram Ramachandran Educational Trust (J.R.E.T.) Raghava Middle School, which is a minority educational institution. Her appointment came to be approved by the District Educational Officer on 18.08.2011. On the basis of staff fixation, the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Panel) in Sri J.R.E.T. Raghava Middle School, was declared as surplus and accordingly, the petitioner along with the post was redeployed to Thiyagaraya Chetty Primary School, through the proceedings of the Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer dated 02.06.2014 and accordingly, the petitioner is continuing with the said School. In the impugned order dated 08.07.2015, the second respondent herein, had declared that the petitioner is required to qualify in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), within 5 years from G.O.Ms. No. 181, School Education Department dated 15.11.2011. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner, along with the post, was redeployed from the minority school to the non-minority school and her appointment was already approved, even prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 181 dated 15.11.2011, the authorities cannot insist the petitioner to qualify in TET. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Secretary to Government and Others vs. S. Jeyalakshmi and Another, 2016 Writ L.R. 769 and submitted that such a requirement of qualifying in TET for the teachers whose appointment were already approved prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 181 dated 15.11.2011, is not mandatory.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that under Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (for brevity “RTE Act”) along with the notification of NCTE, a pass in TET is a mandatory condition for all minority and non-minority schools, within 5 years from the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 181 dated 15.11.2011 and therefore, there is no infirmity in the proceedings of the second respondent herein, insisting that the petitioner should qualify TET, within a period of 5 years from 15.11.2011.

4. Under Section 23(1) of RTE Act, the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter called as ‘NCTE’) is the Academic Authority for the Government of India, which has issued notification to all the State Governments, indicating that all teachers to be appointed in all Elementary Educational Institutions should have passed TET conducted by the concerned Government, as a mandatory condition. The notification of NCTE dated 23.08.2010 and 11.02.2011, mandates a pass in TET as one of the essential qualifications for a person to be eligible ‘for appointment as a Teacher’ in any school, imparting elementary education. The notification does not make a reference to the requirement of passing of TET to the existing teachers, prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 181 dated 15.11.2011.

5. However, when a batch of Writ Petitions came to be dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramati Educational and Cult